2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film was a very creative documentary that opened up with funeral music, imagery of cemeteries, and finally the burial of the electric car. The film focused on how the modern day electric car was seen all over the roads of California in 1996. In 10 years, it was totally gone. Around 100 years ago, electric cars were more popular and dominant than cars running on gas. The documentary went on to examine why the gas car won. It was a combination of cheaper oil and mass production. GM became quite serious with making an electric car after it won the world solar race challenge in 1987 in Australia.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film focuses on numerous sustainability problems including the government and special interests, the sheer power of the car and oil industries, and the environmental effects that modern day gasoline powered vehicles have on the environment. The government holds off on regulating global warming emissions due to the simple fact that car and oil industries pay them not to regulate. This leads into how amazingly powerful these industries are. They can and do control everything they need to maintain a prosperous industry.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
One of the most compelling parts of the film was when it showed the former owners of the electrical cars holding funerals for them. This clearly showed that they loved their car and there was an increasing demand for these vehicles; however GM, motivated simply by the increasing size of their wallets, closed the assembly line for the EV1 car.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I didn’t think it was very compelling when the oil executive said that the death of the electrical vehicle was based upon the fact that they were technologically inferior. The cars that were on the road were cheap, fast, much cleaner and quieter. Charging the cars only cost an equivalent of 60cents per gallon. The batteries are kept charged for over 70 miles which is plenty of time for majority of people to do their driving.
6. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I think this film best addresses viewers who are somewhat educated in science and technology regardless of age. It covers sophisticated material, however it does such in a way that I think even younger viewers may be able to grasp the overall concept without having to actually completely understand the material.
7. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I would have liked to have heard more about the electric vehicles from the early 1900’s. It only discussed these briefly and didn’t go into too much detail on their technologies or why they too died; only that mass production and the availability of cheap oil is why gas vehicles succeeded.
8. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
Protesting and media awareness seemed to be the major solutions that the film drew out. They initially made it sound like the ability to change was impossible, however it seems that with further education to the public on these topics that change may come rapidly.
9. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
I was interested to see what electrical vehicles are currently being developed. Many large automakers are planning on releasing electric cars soon including the Nissan Leaf which seems to be flooding “google” searches. However, GM, who is depicted in the film to be a antagonist, is currently working to relaunch their version of an electric car in the form of the Chevy Volt. http://www.ev.com/ev-news/insider-scoops/nissan-leaf-sells-out-pre-orders-suspended.html
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film was a very creative documentary that opened up with funeral music, imagery of cemeteries, and finally the burial of the electric car. The film focused on how the modern day electric car was seen all over the roads of California in 1996. In 10 years, it was totally gone. Around 100 years ago, electric cars were more popular and dominant than cars running on gas. The documentary went on to examine why the gas car won. It was a combination of cheaper oil and mass production. GM became quite serious with making an electric car after it won the world solar race challenge in 1987 in Australia.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film focuses on numerous sustainability problems including the government and special interests, the sheer power of the car and oil industries, and the environmental effects that modern day gasoline powered vehicles have on the environment. The government holds off on regulating global warming emissions due to the simple fact that car and oil industries pay them not to regulate. This leads into how amazingly powerful these industries are. They can and do control everything they need to maintain a prosperous industry.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
One of the most compelling parts of the film was when it showed the former owners of the electrical cars holding funerals for them. This clearly showed that they loved their car and there was an increasing demand for these vehicles; however GM, motivated simply by the increasing size of their wallets, closed the assembly line for the EV1 car.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I didn’t think it was very compelling when the oil executive said that the death of the electrical vehicle was based upon the fact that they were technologically inferior. The cars that were on the road were cheap, fast, much cleaner and quieter. Charging the cars only cost an equivalent of 60cents per gallon. The batteries are kept charged for over 70 miles which is plenty of time for majority of people to do their driving.
6. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I think this film best addresses viewers who are somewhat educated in science and technology regardless of age. It covers sophisticated material, however it does such in a way that I think even younger viewers may be able to grasp the overall concept without having to actually completely understand the material.
7. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I would have liked to have heard more about the electric vehicles from the early 1900’s. It only discussed these briefly and didn’t go into too much detail on their technologies or why they too died; only that mass production and the availability of cheap oil is why gas vehicles succeeded.
8. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
Protesting and media awareness seemed to be the major solutions that the film drew out. They initially made it sound like the ability to change was impossible, however it seems that with further education to the public on these topics that change may come rapidly.
9. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
I was interested to see what electrical vehicles are currently being developed. Many large automakers are planning on releasing electric cars soon including the Nissan Leaf which seems to be flooding “google” searches. However, GM, who is depicted in the film to be a antagonist, is currently working to relaunch their version of an electric car in the form of the Chevy Volt.
http://www.ev.com/ev-news/insider-scoops/nissan-leaf-sells-out-pre-orders-suspended.html
http://www.chevrolet.com/pages/open/default/fuel/electric.do